20191024-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To VGSO - Nick Field Chief Operating Officer

Page 1
1
2
3 Victorian Government Solicitor's Office 24-10-2019
4 C/o Nick Field Chief Operating Officer
5 Level 39, 80 Collins Street, Melbourne Vic 3000
6 t +61 3 9032 3004 f +61 3 9032 3049
7 Nick.Field@vgso.vic.gov.au
8
9 Ref: 20191024-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to VGSO- Nick Field Chief Operating Officer
10
11 Sir,
12 I refer to the various correspondences relating to the so called RED SHIRT issues.
13
14 Just to recall:
15
16 QUOTE 24-11-2018 correspondence
17 When the Victorian Government solicitors Office in Pervakis v Schorel-Hlavka CCV No
18 AP-12-1704 matter prosecuted me I became aware that the right of silence was no more.
19 END QUOTE 24-11-2018 correspondence
20
21 This was where I as a candidate in the State election of Ivanhoe had refused to file a declaration
22 as to expenses, this as I at the time stated to the court, I pursued compensation from Banyule
23 City Council for destroying/damaging, etc, my political banners/posters involving then city
24 councilor Mr Anthony Carbines who ended up in that 2010 state election to become the
25 successful candidate.
26
27 It was Mr Matthew Carrazzo of the Victorian Government Solicitor's Office
28 (Matthew.Carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au <Matthew.Carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au>) who then for Pervakis (Pervakis v
29 Schorel-Hlavka CCV No AP-12-1704) was conducting the litigation against.
30
31 I held that this was nothing less but a political conduct against me as another candidate who had
32 not at the time made any financial declaration was not then charged. Mr Anthony Carbines as my
33 opponent in the election using Banyule Council staff was clearly violating council policies.
34 While this might in itself not relate to the Red Shirt issue it is however relevant that upon his
35 election in Pervakis v Schorel-Hlavka CCV No AP-12-1704 then I was pursued for not filing a
36 expense declaration but not the other candidate who also didn’t file a expensive declaration, and
37 while the court held I was guilty the court did not otherwise issue orders against me as the court
38 was made aware that I didn’t desire to make an expense declaration and then afterwards
39 receiving monies as compensation, if any, then could be held to have made a false and
40 misleading declaration.
41 As such, my refusal to file a declaration was to avoid being held liable of filing a
42 false/misleading expense declaration.
43
44 With the RED SHIRT issue it is in my view clear from the then Ombudsman of Victoria Report
45 that Mr Matthew Carbines and other candidates misused persons for electoral issues not
46 permitted by law. I understand that hundreds of thousands of dollars were involved in this. I
24-10-2019 Page 1 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series by making a reservation, or E-mail
admin@inspector-rikati.com See also www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati
Page 2
1 understand that the Victorian Australian Labour Party paid hundreds of thousands of dollars as
2 result that were as to what was established by the then Victorian Ombudsman as having been
3 inappropriately used for election purposes.
4
5 Prior to my 24-11-2018 correspondence I had previously written about my earlier writing “Ref:
6 20181123-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Government Solicitors Office”
7 .
8 As Parvakis was acting on her own behalf and yet the Victorian Government Solicitors Office
9 nevertheless represented her then I view the VGSO should likewise now pursue matters on my
10 behalf against all and any who filed false/misleading financial declaration regarding the 2014
11 Victorian State Election. After all if the VGSO were to fail to do so then it would show not only
12 political bias but more over to blatantly disregard serious issues such as the filing of
13 false/misleading financial declarations, etc.
14
15 If Mr Matthew Carrazzo failed to pass on the correspondences to the VGSO then nevertheless
16 the VGSO should hold that as it was addressed to “Victorian Government Solicitors Office”
17 then for all purposes and intend this was correspondence to it.
18
19 I understand that statements were made by various persons that no charges are to be pursued
20 against any of those involved in the so called RED SHIRT issue, however, I view that in regard
21 of my 23-11-2018 complaint, etc, any such statement could be deemed an obstruction to justice
22 as the VGSO has not whatsoever responded to my complaint. It appears to have merely blatantly
23 ignored it, and this would rather indicated that not the Rule of law is its concern but political
24 bias.
25
26 I therefore urge you to ensure that my complaint is appropriately considered and that appropriate
27 action is taken to hold those who failed to disclose relevant details in their 2014 declaration as
28 held legally accountable as much as the VGSO pursued me, this even so I have nothing to
29 declare.
30 If nothing to declare nevertheless is an offence no doing so then surely filing false/misleading
31 declaration by so many cannot be ignored.
32
33 It has now been more than 11 months since I provided my 23-11-2018 correspondence, etc,
34 and so well overdue for me to receive an appropriate response.
35
36 QUOTE 23-11-2019 CORRESPONDENCE
37 Victorian Government Solicitors Office 23-11-2018
38 C/o Matthew Carrazzo
39 Principal Solicitor @ Victorian Government Solicitor's Office
40 Workplace Relations & Regulatory Compliance
41
42 Victorian Government Solicitor's Office
44 t +61 3 9032 3004 f +61 3 9032 3049
45 matthew.carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au
46 www.vgso.vic.gov.au
47 Matthew.Carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au <Matthew.Carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au>
Managing Lawyer @ Brimbank Melton Community Legal Centre
48
49 Ref: 20181123-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Government Solicitors Office
50
51 Sir,
Page 3
1 because your email address is doubtful as to if it is with or without spaces, etc, I will use
2 different versions as to try to make sure you receive it.
3
4 As you may recall you were involved in the Pervakis v Schorel-Hlavka CCV No AP-12-
5 1704 matter in which the Victorian Government Solicitors Office represented Pervakis and
6 when the matter came on appeal before Her Honour Gaynor J in the County Court of Victoria
7 Her Honour made it clear that within the provisions of the legislation anyone could bring a case
8 regarding such matter to the court.
9 QUOTE
From: Matthew.Carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au <Matthew.Carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au>
To: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com, schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com

Cc:
Date: Friday, September 21, 2012 04:10 pm

Subject: Schorel-Hlavka v Parvakis - County Court Appeal (Our Ref: 1121763)
10
11 (2KB)
12 Scho3107Extract.doc (47KB)
13
14 Gerritt,
15
16 I refer to our telephone discussion this afternoon
17
18 Please find attached a transcript of the digital audio file containing the recording of your evidence
19 to the Magistrates' Court at the hearing on 31 July 2012:
20
21
22 I will arrange for a copy of the CD containing the complete recording to be sent by express post this
23 afternoon, so that it shall hopefully arrive on Monday.
24
25 I am grateful for your indication that you preliminary indication that you will not take issue with the
26 authenticity of the recording. I understand your position to be that the admissibility of the recording
27 as evidence of any admission by you concerning the failure to lodge a campaign donation return
28 may still be the subject of argument.
29
30 I am also grateful for your indication that you do not require Mr Oldfield's attendance as a witness,
31 as was the case with the Magistrates' Court hearing. I will notify Mr Oldfield that his attendance is
32 not required.
33
34 Finally, I confirm that I will seek instructions from my client as to any application for an adjournment
35 of the hearing on Wednesday, on the basis that your preparation for the hearing has been
36 disrupted by the hacking of your home computer systems and deletion of much of your stored data.
37 I will contact you on Monday to confirm these instructions.
38
39 Yours sincerely,
Matthew Carrazzo
Senior Solicitor
Workplace Relations & Regulatory Compliance
Victorian Government Solicitor's Office

Page 4
Level 39, 80 Collins Street, Melbourne Vic 3000

t +61 3 9032 3004 f +61 3 9032 3049
matthew.carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au
www.vgso.vic.gov.au
 Think Green before printing this email.

1 END QUOTE
2
3 Hence, I now request that the Victorian Government Solicitors Office institute legal proceedings
4 against those ALP members who failed to disclose the monies the Victorian Ombudsman held
5 they benefitted in their financial declaration, by this using me as the informer.
6
7 I understand that reportedly Mr Anthony Carbines benefitted $12,361 and obviously where I
8 understand he would have failed to declare this in his financial statement at the time then I view
9 he committed perjury filing a false and misleading statement. This is precisely what I stated in
10 court I didn’t want to do.
11 Where also this was in relation to ALP person Lenders than I view this constitute a
12 CONSPIRACY where it involved more than one person to do so.
13
14 I understand it was also unlawful for Mr Anthony Carbines (then being a Banyule City Council
15 councillor) using council employees for his personal political ends, as he did with regard of
16 sending a by-law officer to my residence claiming I had littered outside his office and that
17 causing him/them to remove my banners and posters that were part of my election as an
18 INDEPENDENT candidate in the 2010 Ivanhoe State election.
19 I have other pictures which shows that my posters in Banyule City were ripped off from where
20 they had been displayed, which are not included in my 22-11-2018 correspondence to the Chief
21 Commissioner of Police Mr Graham Ashton.
22
23 See also my correspondence posted at my blog:
24
25 Our democracy finds its roots in FAIR and PROPER elections but it now appears to
26 me that the Victorian Police takes far too much time to do the job that could have
27 been expected from it to hold certain people legally accountable!
28
29 This document can be downloaded from:
30 https://www.scribd.com/document/393860400/20181122-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-
31 Graham-Ashton-AM-Chief-Commissioner-Victorian-Police-RED-SHIRT-Issue-
32 Investigation-etc-Suppl-6
33
34 This document shows images relating to the damages to my election banners and posters, etc.
35 If you are really concerned about upholding the rule of law then why not pursue appropriate
36 charges against those who omitted to disclose their financial gains in their financial statements?
37
38 Further, as I make clear the issue is that when a State election is called then all seats are declared
39 vacant, and as such until the return of the writs wed do not have a single Member of Parliament.
40 We do however have a care-taking government in that time. It means that the care-taking
41 Government must act without political bias and as such cannot at taxpayers cost involve itself in
42 political matters to favour themselves. Hence any usage of telephone, time and office facilities
43 cannot be used for political election. Neither can any former Member of Parliament, regardless if
44 they are in a ministerial position or not use taxpayers funded services. As such all and any
45 Member of Parliament/former Member of Parliament who uses public monies to advance
Page 5
1 himself/herself or other political aligned person would be financially benefitting from this and
2 regardless if there is any legislation on foot to purportedly permit this it nevertheless violated s44
3 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) to which the States within
4 Section 106 “subject to this constitution” are bound to the embedded legal principle of Section
5 44, which was derived from the colonial constitutions.
6
7 There is also an issue that Premier Mr Daniel Andrews authorized the release of about 80,000
8 pages relating to decisions of Mr Matthew Guy then as planning Minister. The issue is that
9 clearly the release (itself breaches publications of privacy legislation of certain confidential
10 details) was for no other purpose but as a political tool. To scan in and convert those 80,000
11 pages into a pdf format would have taken numerous hours and hence the cost of this for political
12 purposes cannot be deemed for the public purpose and I view by this Mr Daniel Andrews
13 misused/abused his office and legal powers as a Premier to do a political battle and should be
14 held legally accountable for the cost associated with this.
15 .
16 Likewise so with the rorting of the Red Shirt issue, I view that the litigation such as the High
17 Court of Victoria case against the Victorian Ombudsman was not one of a nature of public
18 interest but was a private matter of those involved in the Red shirt issue and hence the cost of
19 reportedly more than $1 million was to be deemed a private matter cost which the Premier and
20 others involved should re-reimburse the taxpayers and be held legally accountable for defrauding
21 the State consolidated Revenue fund (taxpayers).
22
23 Further, as it is a violation of electoral laws to interfere with the political material of a candidate
24 and my evidence before the court, not challenged whatsoever by the prosecution both before the
25 Magistrates Court of Victoria and on appeal before Her Honour Gaynor J in the County Court of
26 Victoria then I view charges should have been laid against Mr Anthony Cart bines and those who
27 assisted him in vandalizing, stealing, interfering my election material.
28
29 The following transcript is about the court case against me and it must be made clear and
30 understood that my evidence as to Banyule City Council involvement and so of Anthony
31 carbines and others was never challenged! As such it was uncontested evidence in court.
32
33 Pervakis v Schorel-Hlavka CCV No AP-12-1704
34
35 QUOTE 31 July 2012
36 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
37
38 MAGISTRATES' COURT
39
40 No. C11666860
41
42 HEIDELBERG
43
44 TUESDAY 31 JULY 2012
45
46
47 BEFORE MS S.M. WAKELING, MAGISTRATE
48
49 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSPECTORATE v. GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-
50 HLAVKA
51
52
53 EXTRACT OF PROCEEDINGS
Page 6
1
2
3 MR M. CARRAZZO appeared on behalf of the Local Government Inspectorate.
4
5 MR G.H. SCHOREL-HLAVKA appeared in person.
6
7 PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY MAGISTRATES' COURT
8
9
10 SPARK AND CANNON 9248-5678
11 Level 9, 620 Bourke Street, Melbourne
12
13 The Crown in right of the State of Victoria.
14 This work is copyright. No part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic,
15 mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in
16 a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission of the Authorised
17 Officer.
18
19 HER HONOUR: Yes, all right, now, Mr Schorel-Hlavka, I've indicated to you previously
20 that you are not required to respond to the evidence that I've heard, that if you choose to
21 give evidence in response to the evidence of the prosecution this is your time to do so.
22 MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: Can I take my laptop with me?
23 HER HONOUR: Absolutely.
24
25 <GERRIT HENDRIK SCHOREL-HLAVKA, sworn and examined:
26 HER HONOUR: Now, you're welcome to have a seat, Mr Schorel-Hlavka?---Thank you.
27 May I make a statement first of all, Your Honour, so that that may help?
28 Yes, I think that the best way of proceeding is for you simply to tell me about the
29 circumstances that I need to know about in response to the allegation that is made?
30 ---Your Honour, Banyule City Council and myself had a long running dispute in regard
31 of elections. I'm a person who stands up for the constitution and my elections are about
32 constitutional matters and a proper observation of the constitution. One of the issues I
33 have been dealing with is that the councils were overcharging ratepayers in certain ways
34 like on pensions because they're not following the Commonwealth requirement to limit the
35 rate increases to CPI, so what Banyule council's been doing; for instance when I stood
36 against one of the councillors for the election they then, in 2010, started to remove all my
37 posters and banners because of the damage to the council if I was to get elected. The
38 extent was that far that even the police got involved because my posters were slashed, it
39 scared my wife, they dumped them in my yard. Councillor Anthony Carbines at the time;
40 he instructed councillors to remove my banners and posters and this went on, so that was
41 during the Ivanhoe election.
42 Who was it? Who do you say instructed the council - - -?
43 ---It was then Councillor Anthony Carbines. He was then subsequently elected in that
44 election. I was also - had my posters and banners regarding opposition of freeway when he
45 was in favour of the freeway, so there was quite a clash there. He even had the council on
46 my back saying that I was littering the road with how to vote cards. Now, I gave out free
47 how-to-vote cards outside the post office and because he had his office next to the post
48 office - - -
49 You've identified the problem that you were having?---Yes, okay, so there was a little bit
50 of problem there, so the council basically was targeting me unrealistically because how-to-
51 vote cards are outside our litter laws, but anyhow, so that had been going on which the
52 police investigated and I said, "Look I want from the council an investigation and I want
53 you to compensate me for the missing posters and banners." When it came down to the
Page 7
1 Olympia ward election the same thing again was happening; that's the election ward
2 (indistinct) the same thing happened. My banners and posters were being removed, not of
3 any other candidate, only mine, and there was quite a correspondence of that, so my letter -
4 and then Kylie Boyle; she wrote about the returns and everything else and I had already
5 written previous to the council that for me to do a return I would have to know how much
6 compensation do council provide because that basically has to be disclosed as part of a
7 donation because it was regarding cost incurred previously, et cetera.
8 Let me just make sure I understand what you're telling me there. You're saying that in
9 order to determine the declarable donations received by you in the election campaign you
10 had to have resolved the issue of the compensation due to you from the council?---Yes,
11 that's what I was asking for; the loss of all the banners that they were taking away during
12 the election.
13 You were proposing to set off the compensation owed to you by the council against the
14 donations that you received. Is that right?---Well, I didn't receive any donations, but if the
15 council were to give me a donation then that would have to be declared as a settlement,
16 let's say, for the missing posters. In fact, Your Honour, when Kylie Boyle was involved in
17 that there was ongoing correspondence. Now, one of the letters was in fact my 5 May
18 2011 correspondence to Kylie Boyle, immediately the same day when she wrote to me,
19 you know, that I still could file and in that for instance I stated where I am to make a
20 declaration that obviously the issue is that it must be done to the facts and not simply is
21 concocted or just made up and hence I will await from each council their report to me as to
22 resolve the investigation and also any conclusive report that the Victoria Police may
23 provide. Finally, one day, I can, in all honesty, provide any declaration that ordinarily are
24 or may be required within a specific time period. It was simply I have asked for
25 investigations by the council already for a long running time and ask them to compensate
26 me for the damage that was done et cetera which is basically towards the election funds
27 because it's part of it. I've clearly indicated that, so it wasn't an issue about saying I thumb
28 my nose on the law, I don't do that. It was simply that I am saying, "Look if you want me
29 to make a declaration let me do it in an honest and proper manner." That's what the issue
30 was about, so there was ongoing correspondence, but I'm just saying the 5th. So what
31 council obviously did, and the witness before said that he didn't know about it, but clearly I
32 was in communication with Kylie Boyle from Banyule council. There was police
33 investigation going, there was council elections going on and I still haven't had a response.
34 Now, when I immediately the same day respond, right, to them then it doesn't show that I
35 just thumb my nose on them and said, "Look I ignore you." I have asked them to respond
36 back to me and I know councils don't always respond back immediately, they take their
37 time. It has been in other matters that I have written to council too that it takes sometimes
38 a year or more before I get a response, so in that regard there's nothing that I did to say,
39 "Look I don't care." It is simply - and this letter on 5 May relates to it and this is what I'm
40 saying. There was a lot of waiting going on about matters and I believe that in the
41 circumstances I acted properly and when Kylie Boyle said, "Look we give you an
42 extension of time," whether it's 16 May or not, where she is acting on behalf of the council
43 I'm entitled to assume that she is lawfully authorised to give the extension. If she misled
44 me that is not my fault. I acted in good faith to what they were saying. Now, in this letter,
45 you know, of 5 May - I haven't got a hard copy with me, but I can email it and
46 Your Honour can straightaway have a copy of it. It clearly will underline, without going
47 into all the details, that this was an ongoing conflict regarding council versus me and I say
48 that this matter currently before the court simply is another way of them trying to get back
49 on me because I'm exposing what they are doing wrong. I don't believe this is in good
50 faith to say, "Look, you know, this man just thumbs his nose on the law." That wasn't it at
51 all. Mr McMillan, himself, knows that over the past I have had numerous council issues
Page 8
1 with him regarding a 400 million dollar project in Greensborough. I was the only objector
2 and in the end it didn't go ahead because I wrote to the Federal Government it was
3 unconstitutional to fund it and in the pub case, so that is basically what I want to say,
4 Your Honour.
5 Thank you. I just want to be very clear about my understanding of your evidence then. I
6 do understand that you were engaged in discussions with the council at least and had
7 requested an investigation by the council and an investigation by the Victoria Police with
8 respect to allegations made by you that the council was systematically targeting you for the
9 purpose of discouraging you from seeking election or hindering your chances of being
10 elected?---Yes, not seeking election, Your Honour, if I may correct you - - -
11 Hindering your chances of being successful?--- - - - but determined to undermine my
12 election.
13 You were in correspondence and discussion with Kylie Boyle on behalf of the council with
14 respect to the claims that you were making on council and to Victoria Police. Am I correct
15 about that?---Yes, that's right.
16 During those discussions you received a reminder from Ms Boyle dated 5 May to lodge
17 your declaration by 15 May. You had made it clear to Ms Boyle that you were seeking to
18 resolve the question as to the moneys owed to you by council either by means of a council
19 investigation or a police investigation. You were genuinely and honestly convinced that
20 you would be required to declare any funds that you did receive as a result of the
21 investigation by council or police in the return following the bi-election and that having
22 regard to the fact that that dispute was as yet unresolved you were deferring lodging your
23 return. Is that what you're saying?---That's what I indicated. I indicated and, as I said, the
24 moment I got her email regarding the declarations I immediately returned back the letter
25 saying this and that, so that was all - - -
26 Sorry, no, I don't understand that?---When Ms Kylie Boyle wrote to me on 5 May the same
27 day I wrote back to her immediately on that.
28 Yes?---The problem with have sometimes is the different council office do different things,
29 they don't seem to communicate - - -
30 What did you say in response to her?---Well, that's what I read out before to you.
31 Yes, sorry, and I didn't follow it, so just take me through it again?---Okay. That I wanted
32 to do a declaration, but I said here, "One day can I honestly provide a declaration that
33 ordinarily may be required within a specific time period", so I'm saying, "Look I want to
34 do the declaration, but I don't want to make a false declaration because then I can be held
35 liable by law for filing a declaration that may be untrue", so what I needed to do was a
36 declaration and I said, at that very moment, "I cannot make a declaration because the
37 council has not responded back to me, the police hasn't given me any information yet and
38 so I'm in no legal position to give a declaration because if I do now I am liable to making a
39 false declaration."
40 All right, thank you. I think I've understood your evidence?
41 ---Thank you.
42 Any cross-examination?
43 MR CARRAZZO: No, Your Honour.
44 HER HONOUR: Thank you. You're free to leave the witness box. Thank you, Mr
45 Schorel-Hlavka?---Thank you, Your Honour.
46 <(THE WITNESS WITHDREW)
47 HER HONOUR: Are there any other witnesses that you would like to call?
48 MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: No, thank you, Your Honour.
49 HER HONOUR: So that's your evidence?
50 MR SCHOREL-HLAVKA: That's correct, Your Honour.
51 HER HONOUR: Thank you very much.
Page 9
1 END OF EXTRACT
2
3 END QUOTE 31 July 2012
4
5 Mr Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka and Banyule City Council Chief Executive officer Mr
6 Simon Mc Millan are back in court again on Wednesday 26 September 2012, this time in
7 the County Court of Victoria for an appeal.
8 Her Honour Gaynor J made clear the constitution doesn’t apply to her which caused some
9 uproar in the public gallery then Her Honour warned the public to have them all removed
10 if they again made a comment. Obviously with a judge who claims to be above the
11 constitution one can expect nothing less then to side with the prosecutor.
12 Still, I made my case and as my evidence was never challenged then clearly it was implied
13 admitted by the prosecutor. Yet, nothing eventuated as to any investigation, etc, after all
14 we were, as I understood it, dealing with ALP dominated councils and a council officer
15 misusing his position against a other State election candidate didn’t seem to be an issue for
16 all concerned other than myself, not even for the VEC.
17
18 You may have wondered at the time why I was not challenging the issue of the financial
19 statement, such as false claiming perhaps it was purportedly send in or whatever, but my aim
20 was to place on court record that Mr Anthony Carbines and Banyule /City council unlawfully
21 interfered with my democratic rights as a INDEPENDENT candidate in the 2010 state Ivanhoe
22 election as I all along expected that years later I could rely upon this evidence having been
23 uncontested. It was at the time open to the Prosecution to have called Banyule City council staff
24 and Mr Anthony Carbines to the court, such as in relation to the appeal before Her Honour
25 Gaynor J to counteract, if that was needed if it was held I had made any
26 false/misleading/incorrect statement what I had state in the Magistrates Court of Victoria at
27 Heidelberg on 31 July 2012, however this was not done.
28 Where you then went along to use this transcript before Her Honour Gaynor then you implied
29 that the evidence in the transcript is not contested and neither sought to do so in the appeal.
30
31 I in 1985 was given the nickname TRAPDOOR SPIDER by a judge for the manner in which I
32 cross-examined witnesses, albeit he did state I was within the rules of cross-examination, and
33 refusing/dismissing the submission of opposing Council for an adjournment. A judge then also
34 made a comment that I was not addressing an appeal but a single judge, where the judge became
35 aware I was making statement for purpose of a subsequent appeal. As a (now retired)
36 Professional Advocate I have also represented lawyers (one was a barrister for 22 years) and I do
37 not consider a hearing to be isolated in particularly not the first hearing but built upon it for
38 further litigation and making it a spring plank for future litigation. Hence, my original evidence
39 in the transcript was that I expected you would go along with this and not realize my long term
40 intentions.
41
42 For the record Banyule City Council or for that anyone else did not offer and neither made any
43 compensation to me for the damage to my election posters/banners, etc.
44
45 I am providing you with this correspondence less than 1 hour prior to Saturday 24 November
46 2018 Victorian State election day to commence so it cannot be claimed I make this complaint,
47 etc, for sour grapes as to someone losing an election, in which I am not a candidate either, but
48 pursues that as the Principle solicitor you now will prosecute Mr Anthony Carbines and others
49 who defrauded the State Consolidate Revenue Funds and failed to disclose their ill gained
50 financial benefits in their financial statements at the time and so also concealed relevant details.
51 .
Page 10
1 At the time that the case was against me I held that this was nothing less than a political matters
2 against me as another candidate who neither within the time frame had filed a financial
3 declaration was not charged. If despite my reasons and not having to declare any donations
4 nevertheless was held to be an offence and needed to be prosecuted then I have no doubt that you
5 as a lawyer and oath as a Member of the Bar will ensure that you will vigorously now pursue
6 others for their failures to disclose financial issues relevant to the State election of 2014 in
7 particular where I had already in my correspondence 20140616-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
8 to Christine Fyffe, Speaker Re EXPULSION Daniel Andrews + James Merlino required-
9 etc which also was then forwarded to Mr Daniel Andrews leader of the opposition, as with other
10 correspondences, that he knew or ought to have known that misuse of public monies was not
11 permitted nor the misuse of his office.
12
13 http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
14 QUOTE
15 Ethics Orientation for State Officials

16 Misuse of Public Funds
17 Public Funds may not be Used for Personal Purposes
18 END QUOTE
19
20 QUOTE 20140616-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Christine Fyffe, Speaker Re EXPULSION
21 Daniel Andrews + James Merlino required-etc
22 WITHOUT PREJUDICE
23 Christine Fyffe, Speaker 16-6-2014
24 christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.au
25
26 Cc: Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
27 Treasurer Michael O’Brien michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au
28 Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
29 Mr Geoff Shaw geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au
30 Robert Clark Attorney General robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au
31 Louise Asher louise.asher@parliament.vic.gov.au
32 Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
33 David Hurley david.hurley@news.com.au
34 Bruce Atkinson bruce.atkinson@parliament.vic.gov.au
35 Mr Ken Smith ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au
36 George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au
37
38 20140612-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Christine Fyffe, Speaker
39 Re EXPULSION Daniel Andrews + James Merlino required -etc
40 Christine,
41 I am wondering what on earth the “donations” you referred to on 12 June 2014 related to:
42 QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 12-6-2014
43 The SPEAKER—Order! Before calling for questions I would like to advise the house that
44 following numerous inquiries received this morning I have chosen to donate the moneys from the
45 member for Frankston’s repayment, as decided by the house yesterday, to bowel cancer research. I
46 am advised that this amount will be $4200, so added to the contributions already made by the
47 Leader of the Opposition, the member for Monbulk and the member for Bendigo East of $5793,
48 this will result in just under $10 000 being given to bowel cancer research.
49 END QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 12-6-2014
50
51 I checked the Hansard of 10, 11 and 12 June 2014 and was unable to find any explanation why
52 the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Bendigo East provided such donation.
53 In the way it is recorded in the Hansard it may appear to ordinary readers that Mr Daniel
54 Andrews, Leader of the Opposition is such a kind and benefactor person to donate $5,793. And
Page 11
1 like wise so with the Member for Bendigo East Jacinta Allen, who according to her website
2 appears to be an ALP member. (http://www.jacintaallan.com)
3
4 In my 7-6-2014 correspondence to you I stated:
6 As was reported in an article in the Herald Sun 6-6-2014 under the heading “Book of Daniel unread” that Mr
7 Daniel Andrews allegedly on 5-6-2014 went to Frankston and so with alleged “candidate” for the ALP and
8 state deputy ALP leader James Merlino r4egarding the candidate.
9 Moment is this not CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT for Mr Daniel Andres and Mr James Merlino to go
10 electioneering even so the Speaker n or the governor issued any writ for a by-election?
11 Is it now that Mr Daniel Andrews what the speaker of the Legislative Assembly or the Governor must do?
12 In my view this kind of conduct is unbecoming to being a Member of Parliament.
13 In my view it is undermining the authority of both the speaker and the Governor.
14 In my view it is unduly undermining the right of Mr Geoff Shaw to be regarded as the duly elected
15 representative of Frankston.
16 END QUOTE 7-6-2014 CORRESPONDENCE
17 OK, there is at least an offending typing error in the word “r4egarding” but hardly a hanging
18 offence, and quoting one cannot removed a typing error. Just to let you know I am aware of it.
19 Now, as since my 7-6-2014 correspondence (that was actually when I turned 67 – and to the
20 displeasure of my wife I was writing instead of celebrating) it seems to me very suspicious that
21 Mr Daniel Andrews would make a $5,793. A very odd figure, and as such I assume, again I state
22 I assume, that this is where he may have calculated that this might be the estimated cost he had
23 charged to the taxpayers for his grotesque conduct to parade a “candidate” for the Frankston by-
24 election that didn’t exist. Admittedly he and his deputy leader are not the only once, as I view it,
25 misusing and abusing their position to refer to a “candidate”, where no such “candidate” was
26 declared by the electoral commission.
27 I spend some 16 years in numerous elections as an INDEPENDENT candidate and actually
28 complained against the Clive Palmer advertising to vote for Clive Palmer as Prime Minister, as
29 there is no such electoral system in Australia that you can vote for a Prime Minister or for a
30 Premier. Yet, Members of Parliament are ongoing deceiving electors with that they can vote for
31 someone to become Premier. I may state that the within hours of making the complaint against
32 the Clive Palmer false/misleading advertising the advertisement was withdrawn.
33 I on 15-6-2014 received in the mailbox documentation which states “Liberal Candidate for
34 Ivanhoe”. To my knowledge Parliament is still sitting, and no writs were issued, let alone
35 nominations for candidates having closed and certainly the electoral commission has to my
36 knowledge not declared any “candidate” for the November state election.
37 Perhaps I was wrong over the 16 years to hold that one is not a “candidate” until the electoral
38 commission announces the accepted nominations?
39
40
41 It appears therefore that not the constitution, Governor, the Speaker/President or even the
42 Parliament decides when writs will be issued and if an election will be held but that those leading
43 political now dictate what is to be deemed the law.
Page 12
1 This I view would be anarchy.

2
3 Notice that it was authorised & Printed by Anthony Fernandez!
4 In the Broadmeadows 2011 by-election then too the newspapers were full about the ALP
5 candidate (councillor with Hume City Council) and yet in the end he never was a candidate as
6 McGuire became the candidate. As such this rot is going on and on where both the liberal and
7 labour parties are involved in deceiving the electorate about candidates who in fact are not
8 candidates at all. Yet, somehow the electoral commission so far to my knowledge has done
9 nothing against such false/fraudulent/deceptive conduct also involving persons who are
10 subsequently elected Members of Parliament.
11
12 Remember what Premier Denis Napthine stated (as recorded in Hansard 11-6-2014):
13 “a fair, just and appropriate penalty for the member for Frankston”
14 Why then is he silent about the misuse and abuses against the authority of the Parliament
15 (CONTEMPT), The misuse and abuses against the VICTORIAN Constitution Act 1975
16 (contempt) and the misuse and abuses against the electoral act?
17 After all if this is about compliance with rules and regulations and his party being on about “law
18 and order’ then why is it that his party is defying it all?
19 Is this that the Liberal Party can disregard the rule of law as it has placed itself above the law and
20 indeed above the constitution and know that the speaker/President and the electoral commission
21 will so to say close their eyes in regard of the abuses/fraudulent conduct?
22 How on earth can we have “fair and proper” elections when this rot goes on?
23 How many more ghost “candidates” are there currently promoted for the November State or
24 other purported by-elections where candidates are not candidates at all but might be “potential
25 candidates” or “person interested to be candidates”? Are they there to deceive electorates so than
26 the later real candidate can have it easy?
27 In my view the Liberal Party, Mr Ziebell and Mr Anthony Fernandez who authorised and
28 printed the documentation all should be severely dealt with. After all to undermine the
29 democratic processes of an election cannot be tolerated. This must stop and right now!
30 .
31 Political parties should not dominate the Parliament as to so to say get away with their elaborate
32 fraud upon the elect orates as if we are going to have “a fair, just and appropriate penalty for
33 the member for Frankston” then the Parliament is bound to apply the same to anyone else who
34 defies the rule of law.
35
36 As I spend decades in court representing parties I am too well aware that often a person will
37 claim not to have received my email, this even so they are just making a fraudulent claim.
38 Hence, I ordinary forward to myself a copy of the email which then also list those email
39 addresses to whom a copy was forwarded. The email address
40 daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au clearly is that of the Leader of the Opposition Mr Daniel
41 Andrews and so he knew or could have known that I pursued he be dealt with what I viewed
42 CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT and rorting public monies. It is not relevant if he did or
43 didn’t read my correspondence as that is his choice to make and he might have been briefed ab
44 out the content by others, but in the end he was provided with an opportunity to be aware of it. It
45 is his decision if he disregarded it. Not uncommon I had opponent lawyers disregarding what I
46 had written only then in court seeking an adjournment to respond, which I then opposed as
47 ignorance is no excuse.
48
49 QUOTE 6-7-2014 EMAIL
From: G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. <schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com>
To: christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.au

Page 13
Cc: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com, geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au,

ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au, daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au,
denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au, michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au,
matthew.johnston@news.com.au
Date: Saturday, June 07, 2014 03:00 am
Subject: see attachment 20140607-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-COMPLAINT-etc
Attachments: Text version of this message. (1KB)
20140607-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-COMPLAINT-etc.pdf (782KB)
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Christine Fyffe, Speaker

7-6-
2014
christine.fyffe@parliament.vic.gov.au
Cc: Mr Geoff Shaw MP geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr Ken Smith, Former Speaker, Legislative Assembly Victoria, ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au
Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au
Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au
VICTORIAN Treasurer Michael O’Brien michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au
Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
COMPLAINT
20140607-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-COMPLAINT -etc
Christine,
see attachment 20140607-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-COMPLAINT-etc
Gerrit
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Page 14
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

107 Graham Road, Viewbank 3084
Victoria, Australia
Blog (constitutional issues) http://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati

.
Website: http://www.schorel-hlavka.com/
The content of this email and any attachments are provided WITHOUT PREJUDICE, unless
specifically otherwise stated.
If you find any typing/grammatical errors then I know you read it, all you now need to do is to
consider the content appropriately!
A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING

CONCERNED TO BE LABELLED A FOOL.
1 END QUOTE 6-7-2014 EMAIL
2
3 Again I refer to:
5 The SPEAKER—Order! Before calling for questions I would like to advise the house that
6 following numerous inquiries received this morning I have chosen to donate the moneys from the
7 member for Frankston’s repayment, as decided by the house yesterday, to bowel cancer research. I
8 am advised that this amount will be $4200, so added to the contributions already made by the
9 Leader of the Opposition, the member for Monbulk and the member for Bendigo East of $5793,
10 this will result in just under $10 000 being given to bowel cancer research.
12
13 In my view it would be deceptive if you place on records that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr
14 Daniel Andrews) made a “donation” if in fact this so called donation was in fact a repayment of
15 misuse of public monies. In my view as a Speaker you must honour your parliamentarian office
16 to be and remain neutral and not to conceal from the Parliament relevant details and as such if
17 the “donation” was related to misuse/abuse of public monies, perhaps such as to the fictional
18 Frankston by-election travel, etc, then this was in my view rorting and you cannot have that a
19 Leader of the opposition demanding a member of Parliament to be expelled for what he alleges
20 was “rorting” them himself under cover of “donation” may have paid back some monies that he
21 may have rorted on the public pursed, by this trying to make out he is an man with credibility
22 rather than a “rorter”. In my view there are serious matters to be addressed.
23 .
24 In particular where Mr Daniel Andrews made such an issue about Mr Geoff Shaw rorting the
25 system and should for this be expelled from Parliament then his own conduct as I understand it
26 to be rorting the system while pursuing Mr Geoff Shaw for this cannot be overlooked and he
27 must suffer the very faith he had pursued against Mr Geoff Shaw.
28 .
29 QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 (colour and bolding added)

Page 15
1 Mr ANDREWS (Leader of the Opposition)—If anyone wants to know why ours is regarded as the
2 lowest profession, then simply look at the conduct of the member for Frankston and the Premier’s
3 protection of him. If anyone in this chamber wants to know why we are regarded as being for the
4 public purse instead of the public good, if anyone in this chamber wants to know why we are held
5 in such low regard by the hardworking people of this great state, then look no further than the
6 conduct of the member for Frankston and the Premier’s protection of him via this motion. The
7 Premier says this motion was carefully drafted. We will return to that in a few moments. It is this
8 sort of conduct, this sort of weakness, this apologising for the member for Frankston that sums up
9 this Premier, sums up this government and sums up, sadly, why the community has lost faith in us
10 as a class of person— all of us—and, what is more, lost faith in this chamber and the institution of
11 this Parliament.
12 The Premier’s presentation was littered with inconsistencies and littered with the notions of
13 strength and of doing the right thing. At the outset I remind all honourable members and all
14 Victorians that it has taken the best part of 19 months for us to arrive at this position. Only after the
15 member for Frankston indicated he would withdraw his support from this Premier is the Premier, in
16 complete fulfilment of the great saying ‘There is nothing like a convert’, prepared to act and
17 prepared to ensure that no wrongdoing goes unpunished. The Premier is prepared to make sure—I
18 should not have to refer to my notes, because we have heard it so many times today—that
19 punishments are ‘fair, just and appropriate’.
20 Apparently one can only take the most extreme action if a murder has been committed, if there has
21 been some other piece of absolute malfeasance at the highest of high standards or if it is September.
22 That is the great arbiter of what sort of penalty should be applied, because timing is everything. If
23 the member for Frankston were appropriately punished and an appropriate penalty were levied
24 upon him—that is to say, if he were expelled from this house, which is exactly what should
25 occur, for his completely inappropriate behaviour and for putting his private interests and
26 profits ahead of his public duty and the public trust placed in him by the good people of
27 Frankston—there would be every expectation that a by-election would be held.
28 Captain Courageous over there, the Premier——
29 The SPEAKER—Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that I made it very clear that
30 members should be referred to by their correct titles.
31 Mr ANDREWS—The Premier then, Speaker, fearful of a by-election——
33
34 I may also state that I view that Mr Daniel Andrews comparison of a Member of Parliament
35 versus an employee of the State is misguided as Mr Geoff Shaw was not and is not an employee
36 of the State! And as I have canvassed in previous correspondence the issue of “allowance” is
37 what it is about. The Parliament is not and never was the workplace for members of parliament
38 as the term “workplace” in my view implies employment, which a Member of Parliament t
39 doesn’t have as otherwise it would be an Office of Profit and disqualifies the Member from
40 being a Member of Parliament unless being a Minister of the crown. Hence, it is Mr Daniel
41 Andrews himself I view is in breach of the law because as a “shadow Minister’ he is paid not an
42 “allowance” but a salary with fringe benefits that I view must be deemed to be an Office of
43 Profit and so he has no place in the Parliament to hold a seat. Why then is he and others not held
44 accountable considering his mantra against Mr Geoff Shaw?
45 In my view the statement “The Privileges Committee majority report, which is a complete
46 and utter whitewash” should never have been allowed by the Speaker, this as it undermines the
47 credibility of the privileges committee. Whereas my c riticism was upon its legality to deal with
48 the matter I view that the statement “The Privileges Committee majority report, which is a
49 complete and utter whitewash” is a derogation of the work of the privilege committee and
50 unbecoming to that of a Member of Parliament.
51
52 QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS
53 Indeed we have seen examples across the public sector of people in senior positions, and others in less senior
54 positions, who have been dismissed or have resigned knowing that their position was untenable for much less
55 than the member for Frankston got up to. They have gone; they have done the right thing. They did not have

Page 16
1 to be pushed or forced. In many respects the matter was not for them—they were dismissed immediately. If it
2 is good enough for a staff member of this Parliament, if it is good enough for a public servant in that
3 traditional sense of the term, then why is it not good enough for a servant of the public?
4 If it is good enough for a member of staff in this Parliament to go for doing what the member for Frankston
5 did, or even perhaps less, why is it not the same? Why is it not good enough for the member for
6 Frankston to be expelled from this workplace for having brought dishonour on all of us, regardless of
7 what political party we are from, regardless of what electorate we represent, regardless of how long we
8 have been here, regardless of what motivates us and regardless of what burns inside us? The member
9 for Frankston has defamed all of us, and he ought to be dealt with by all of us, not to suit our own political
10 purposes and not in an act of conversion but in an act of conscience, an act of decency, an act of character,
11 might I say, and an act of leadership—a concept foreign to the Premier, because he became offended by this
12 conduct only after the member for Frankston said, ‘Well, you know what? I’ve had enough of you’. It was
13 only at that point that the Premier thought that this matter could not wait until after the winter break. It was
14 only at that point that the Premier thought we had to be fair, just and appropriate—but not too appropriate!
15 Mr Merlino—And not too early.
16 Mr ANDREWS—And not too early! ‘We have to act on this, We have to do all this wonderful work,
17 Speaker. We have to hurry around, convincing people that we are tough on the member for Frankston, but
18 not too quickly, and not too much and not too well!’. That is the issue here. The Premier is paralysed to act
19 appropriately on the member for Frankston, and this motion shows it.
20 The Privileges Committee majority report, which is a complete and utter whitewash, finds as a matter of
21 fact that, ‘Yes, of course the member for Frankston did it all’, but it could not find him wilful. It could not
22 find that he did it on purpose. It could only find that he was ‘not diligent’. ‘Not diligent’ is not doing a
23 spellcheck. ‘Not diligent’ is not returning a phone call. It does not apply to rorting wilfully and
24 systematically and working on your alibi as well. It does not apply to giving instructions to the staff
25 you have told to misuse the resources—‘If anyone asks, make sure you say it’s for private use’—as if
26 that works anyway! How is going to and from work the responsibility of taxpayers? How is the member
27 for Frankston’s commercial staff getting to and from work a matter for any of our constituents? He did not
28 just give them the line to run if they were ever queried. The member for Frankston also told them how to
29 drive in—how to back the vehicle up so that the security camera did not see what he was doing. So confident
30 was he that he was doing the right thing that he did not want anyone to film it.
32
33 Mr Daniel Andrews refers to “work” where in fact only Ministers of the Crown are attending to
34 their work being in employment with the Crown. A Leader of the opposition promoting to be the
35 alternative government not even understanding the basics of constitutional provisions to me is
36 utter scandalous.
37
38 Let’s apply this statement “It does not apply to rorting wilfully and systematically and
39 working on your alibi as well. It does not apply to giving instructions to the staff you have
40 told to misuse the resources—‘If anyone asks, make sure you say it’s for private use’—as if
41 that works anyway! How is going to and from work the responsibility of taxpayers?” to his
42 usage of arranging for a trip to and from Frankston. Did he use his office staff, computer system,
43 telephone, mobile, etc, to arrange the trip? Telephone/mobile and other records may prove what
44 numbers he called, for this which had nothing to do with the interest of the public or for that
45 constituents of Frankston but merely as I view it his own personal benefits to advance the what I
46 consider fraudulent presentation of a “candidate”. Even if an by-election was called and writs
47 issued I view it still would be rorting the public purse, but where there is no by-election called
48 and no writs issued and yet he and as I understand it Member of Parliament Mr Merlino are
49 rorting public monies while hypocritically alleging Mr Geoff Shaw is doing so and for this
50 should be expelled. At least Mr Geoff Shaw faced his accusers and clearly they were defeated,
51 and yet no such position can be taken by Mr Daniel Andrews, Mr Merlino, and numerous
52 others.
53 In my view it is a matter of credibility of the Parliament that both Mr Daniel Andrews, Mr
54 Merlino are facing the kind of punishment of what I view of their “rorting” as they
55 pursued against Mr Geoff Shaw.
56 It must be clear that where Premier Denis Napthine made clear as referred to below “For a
57 government that says it will not be held to ransom” that therefore he declares to the
Page 17
1 Parliament what he based his as I view it scurrilous allegations against the Member for
2 Frankston Mr Geoff Shaw upon. We cannot have a Member of Parliament and certainly not
3 being a Premier, making scurrilous allegations to incite opposition against the Member for
4 Frankston Mr Geoff Shaw and then drop it all as if it never eventuated. In my view, the public is
5 entitled to know if Premier Denis Napthine concocted it all as after all using the term “ransom”
6 implies a unlawful conduct and I view the Parliament cannot tolerate this kind of allegations
7 without full and proper explanation if such claims were justified or were mere scurrilous
8 allegations to get Members of the Legislative Assembly on site to “punish” Mr Geoff Shaw.
9
11 Mr PALLAS (Tarneit)—I rise to speak on the matter of public importance put forward by the Deputy
12 Premier. The words of Napoleon Bonaparte come to my mind. He once said that you should never interrupt
13 an enemy while they are busy making a mistake. If that principle were to apply, we would never get a word
14 in in this place, because this government is littered with error, mistake and illusion. For a government that
15 says it will not be held to ransom, this resolution proves that its members’ grasp on reality has been
16 abducted, and it
17 is Victoria’s and Victorians’ opportunities that have been held hostage.
19
21 The Premier has no shame when it comes to these things. He has done nothing. He has spoken barely a word
22 of criticism against the member for Frankston. But the moment the member for Frankston says, ‘I have had
23 enough of your government that bears no relation to the government fairly and squarely elected three and a
24 half years ago’, suddenly the Premier is about fairness and justice and being appropriate—but only in
25 September. This is transparent, and it is central to the reason why the people of this great state have
26 such low regard for us as parliamentarians and politicians. The conduct of the member for Frankston, the
27 protection of the member for Frankston by the Premier and the Premier’s very recent conversion, motivated
28 by self-interest and nothing more, to hold the member for Frankston to account for appalling behaviour, as
29 found by the Ombudsman, are a reflection——
30 Honourable members interjecting.
31 Mr ANDREWS—Well, that is the fact of these matters, that the Premier has only been motivated by self-
32 interest. That is why he has not spoken one word against the member for Frankston but has been happy to
33 deal with member for Frankston one-on-one in meetings, in texting back and forth, on the phone, in relation
34 to all sorts of agreements around supply and confidence and in rewriting the laws of this state. He has been
35 happy to accede to demands, despite his protestations last week.
36 Mr Ryan interjected.
37 Mr ANDREWS—I am only quoting the Premier. The Deputy Premier might want to look at the tape. I
38 would never want to misquote the Premier; his error can live on. I am happy for that to occur.
39 The issue here is that the Premier has been motivated by one thing and one thing only, and that is his
40 survival. If decency, fairness, accountability, the public trust, the public good, and saying no to the
41 abuse of the public purse were motivations for the Premier, then he would not have waited until the
42 member for Frankston went on ABC radio 774 and said, ‘I have had enough of this Premier’ before speaking
43 up and making the case that the member for Frankston had acted appallingly. The Premier says, ‘I only just
44 received the report’. I am not sure whether Hansard got that. The report was tabled at the end of the previous
45 sitting week, and the Premier spent the entire weekend and the Monday, indicating, ‘Well, we will need to
46 get advice, and I see no reason why this matter needs to be dealt with before the winter break’. There we are,
47 back to September again, you see, Speaker. So confident is the government of support in Frankston that the
48 Premier will do anything to avoid being subject to the views of the people of Frankston.
49 There was talk about legal advice. We have seen none of that legal advice. We have had journalists quoted.
50 We have had conservative commentators—I think it is fair to say that—quoted. We have had quotes from the
51 UK. We have had all sorts of material dressed up as expert opinion, but where is this advice? Where is this
52 legal advice that holds that it would be unsafe to apply an appropriate sanction to the member for Frankston,
53 unless it is in September? Where is that advice that says it would be not only inappropriate and
54 unprecedented but could be open to legal challenge? Where is that advice? Where is that advice for the
55 consumption and consideration of every member of this house and indeed every Victorian? Again, so
56 confident is it in this legal opinion, apparently paid for by the taxpayer—sought by the government and
57 secured by the government— that the government will not come forward and give us a look at it; it will not
58 table it and make it publicly available. That is because this is not a legal strategy; this is a political strategy.
59 This is not a strategy about probity; it is a strategy about politics. It is not a strategy

Page 18
1 about representation; it is a strategy about apologising for rorting. That is what it is. It is not a strategy
2 put forward by the government that is about the highest of standards or punishment; it is about protection.
3 That is exactly what this is: it is about protection, plain and simple.
4 Let us have a look at what the member for Frankston actually did. The Premier skated around a few of these
5 issues and used a few terms to describe it, albeit tough talk by the Premier’s pretty low standards. There was
6 deafening silence from the Premier on the conduct of the member for Frankston for every single day of his
7 premiership, until the day the member for Frankston said, ‘I might end your premiership’, when the Premier
8 then found his voice. It is a mere coincidence, no doubt, Speaker!
9 END QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS
10
11 Again we should apply this mantra by Mr Daniel Andrews Leader of the Opposition to himself
12 and others (including premier Denis Napthine) and ensure that before the week is out appropriate
13 independent investigations are conducted in these matters so that Mr Daniel Andrews statements
14 “If decency, fairness, accountability, the public trust, the public good, and saying no to the
15 abuse of the public purse were motivations for the Premier, then he would not have
16 waited” and “It is not a strategy about representation; it is a strategy about apologising for
17 rorting. That is what it is.” Must be applied as he pursued then let he and others be used as
18 examples.
19 No excuses about what he may have expected as to the holding of a by-election in Frankston but
20 “accountability” for what I view his “rorting’ of public monies.
21 .
23 This vehicle was used expressly for the member for Frankston’s profit, not for the profit of this state,
24 the public good or the public in any sense.
25 END QUOTE Hansard Legislative Assembly 11-6-2014 Mr ANDREWS
26 If Mr Daniel Andrews did the same then surely he has to answer for it, at least Mr Geoff Shaw so
27 to say stared down his accusers in court and is entitled to the benefit of this.
28
29 In the 1970’s when in management of factories I had this worker complaining about how another
30 worker had faulty production and by this weeks of production had to be scrapped. I decided to
31 investigate all worksheets and discovered that the accuser was actually the culprit. This is life,
32 that those who are rorting the most often desire to point the finger at others, and have them
33 punished, as after all you cannot allow others to rort! As such accusers often seem so to say play
34 the high grounds that they are invisible. They think they can get away with their rorting and
35 abused of position and power. THIS CANNOT BE TOLERATED
36 .
37 I have previously requested details/information, etc, to which I am not aware of you provided
38 what was requested to me. I view that the failure to do so may compromise your own position
39 and may make your position as Speaker untenable. After all, I view you acted without legal
40 authority to use Standing Orders 125 and to disregard compliance with Standing Order 126 and
41 this may make your own position untenable as a Speaker. If you failed to act appropriately then
42 the vote cannot be deemed valid and I view you as speaker should have acted immediately, when
43 I altered you to this at the very least, to ensure that the harm inflicted upon Mr Geoff Shaw as
44 Member for Frankston was not aggregated and unduly prolonged. In my view Ms Louise Ashe
45 was in CONTEMPT OF COURT by undermining Mr Geoff Shaw’s benefits and entitlement
46 by the court accepting the withdrawal of the criminal charges.
47 It is easy to vilify a person of “rorting” where the person may by error, misunderstanding,
48 misinterpretation or whatever have used something not deemed entitled upon. What may then to
49 one person appear to be “rorting” to me may in fact not be at all because I look from the point of
50 view of constitutional principles? A clear example is where for example Mr Geoff Shaw
51 Member for Frankston was attacked for working in his business when not attending Parliament,
52 as if this was a sin to be s corned for, where in fact constitutionally it was all along intended by
53 the Framers of the Constitution that a person when not attending to the Parliament engage in his
54 ordinary daily work. As such Mr Geoff Shaw was unduly vilified and this is why people get also
55 a disrespect for politicians as they often so to say run around as a chicken without a head not
Page 19
1 knowing what they are talking about but pursuing others allegedly for a wrongdoing and then
2 when it turns out they are in the wrong themselves then they try to use any excuse under the
3 horizon to excuse themselves. Obviously with the lack of constitutional knowledge Members of
4 Parliament may then deplore a conduct which is only in their mind an offence but seek to dictate
5 others to accept this as fact. While I do not have all details nevertheless some of the outlines
6 recorded in the Hansard of 11-6-2014 to me indicates a gross misconception by many Members
7 of Parliament how matters are to be considered. For example, rightly or wrongly, there is a
8 rumour that Members of Parliament pay a certain amount of moneys and for this are allowed to
9 use a taxpayers funded motor vehicle and free usage of fuel. In my view the providing of the
10 motor vehicle is the real problem as logic is that where a person pays to be allowed a motor
11 vehicle he/she then holds entitled to use it. One must be a complete idiot to argue that not a
12 single Member of Parliament ever misused their vehicle or for that fuel card, as ample use their
13 vehicle to transport friends and others not related to parliamentarian duties. In the circumstances
14 and as I outlined to the Chief Commissioner of police it would be extremely difficult to hold that
15 Mr Geoff Shaw misused public funding. And hence, I was not surprised that subsequently the
16 criminal charges against Mr Geoff Shaw were withdrawn. And that should have been the end
17 of it. However, Parliament decided otherwise to undermine the benefits Mr Geoff Shaw was
18 entitled upon and ad hoc acted against him not even acting within the Standing Orders and in
19 those circumstances I view that the very mantra used against Mr Geoff Shaw Member for
20 Frankston should be used against those who vilified him and accused him in pursued of
21 “punishment”. If the government had for example consulted me about matters, I may have been
22 able to explain what the real constitutional principles are and the government may have saved a
23 lot of public monies avoiding all kinds of defective legal advice of lawyers. In my view a
24 comprehensive INDEPENDENT investigation should be conducted as to all Members of
25 Parliament as to any “rorting” and they should be held accountable. And in my view both Mr
26 Daniel Andrews, Mr Merlino ought to face to be expelled for what I consider
27 inappropriate/unlawful conduct. And if Premier Denis Napthine proved to have falsely accused
28 Member for Frankston Mr Geoff Shaw ab out holding the government to ransom about a judicial
29 decision then I view he too should be expelled.
30 As you are an Officer of Parliament to perform a duty regardless of your political alliance,
31 then I expect no less than that you will explain within which part of Standing Orders 125
32 you claim to have had the power to “name” the Member for Frankston, and also why there
33 was a failure of compliance with Standing order 126.
34 When I was a quality control officer I rejected pallet after pallet of products, this even so the
35 product was what the car manufacturer needed and used and the product were to the
36 requirements of the drawings. I had discovered that the customer had in error placed an incorrect
37 order but our sales staff had substituted this for what they understood was actually intended to be
38 ordered. I indicated we required to have a deviation order, so we could supply the product, and
39 the deviation order was placed and I received the compliments of the Board of Directors for
40 being so attentive to details avoiding another huge damage cost, due a similar previous incident
41 (before my time). I was very strict on compliance, and this as if you allow to have slips then
42 where does it stop. Two wrongs doesn’t make it right and therefore (not that I imply Mr Geoff
43 Shaw acted wrongly) even if he had made an error it cannot justify you to fail to comply and act
44 within Standing orders and hence the vote of the Legislative Assembly I view cannot stand and
45 should be set aside. After all it is about “fair, just and appropriate” I understand being the
46 mantra of Premier Denis Napthine?
47 Is there any appropriate training for Members of Parliament about constitutional
48 principles? As to me if even the Leader of the Opposition appears not to grasp legal principles
49 embedded in the constitution, then there is a basic failure of education regarding this!
50 Where Members of Parliament cannot even act sensibly amongst each other than how can they
51 expect the community to trust their wisdom (if there is any) to provide sensible rules for others?
Page 20
1 So much more to state, but for the moment you should be concerned to what I expose, and I look
2 forwards to your positive response.
3 .
4 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to be legal advice and
5 may not be the same were factual details be different than those understood to be by the writer.
6 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me

7 Gerrit)
8
9 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®
10 (Our name is our motto!)

11 END QUOTE 20140616-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Christine Fyffe, Speaker Re
12 EXPULSION Daniel Andrews + James Merlino required-etc
13
14 It must be clear that the statements Mr Daniel Andrews made in the Parliament (against Geoff
15 Shaw) now may be used against him.
16
17 The issue is now will the Victorian Government Solicitors Office now pursue those who at the
18 time, not being in government either, purse those who misused public monies, omitted and as
19 such filed false declaration as to financial matters, and as members of Parliament then used
20 public monies for their personal private benefits or is it political bias?
21 As the monies at least for so far the Victorian Ombudsman estimated, but could have been a lot
22 more, was repaid by the ALP then clearly it was an ALP private issue. It also should be
23 questioned of the ALP should be stripped of its Not-For-Profit taxation entitlements as it clearly
24 has been misusing Consolidated Revenue funds and misuse public office facilities which cannot
25 be held in the public interest (including the about $1 million to seek to prevent a Victorian
26 Ombudsman investigation.
27 And the $1.2 rfeportede cost to cancel legal contracts that were in relation to the East West ,link.
28 .
29 And also I view that Mr Daniel Andrews and others involved in the sale of the Port of
30 Melbourne facilities should be charged for violating Section 92 of the Commonwealth of
31 Australia Constitution act 1900 (UK)
32
33 Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
34 QUOTE
35 Mr. HENRY: I would like to ask Mr. Barton what effect this would have on several Marine Boards and
36 Harbor Trusts of the colonies which are dependent for their revenues on tonnage rates. This clause, I see,
37 provides that no tonnage duty should be imposed except by Commonwealth. What position, I would like to
38 know, would the various Harbor Trusts and Marine Boards, which are dependent for a portion of their
39 revenue on these tonnage dues, occupy till the Federal Commonwealth has had time to legislate upon this
40 matter.
41 Mr. BARTON: If the tonnage dues are not an infringement upon the principles of intercolonial freetrade, I
42 take it that they would remain in force after the establishment of the Commonwealth; but if the State
43 proposed to take in hand legislation on the subject, it would not be permitted to legislate on that subject
44 without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.
45 Mr. HIGGINS: If it were only an amendment?
46 Mr. BARTON: Possibly the only trouble there would be, that a period of six months would elapse before
47 the Commonwealth Parliament was called together after it is established. So far as the tonnage dues,
48 mentioned by Mr. Henry, did not infringe upon the principles of intercolonial freedom of trade, there would
49 be no difficulty.

Page 21
1 Mr. GLYNN: I think the last few words of this clause are too comprehensive in their meaning. In South
2 Australia there is a lot of land which is leased with the right of purchase, and I can see that under the latter
3 portion of this clause there is considerable danger of defeating the effect of direct taxation.
4 Mr. O'CONNOR: In a case of that kind the reversion which is in the Crown would not be taxed, but
5 the letting value would be taxed.
6 Mr. BARTON: I might mention that the property of the Commonwealth in that land is the reversion upon
7 the lease. The reversion upon the lease would not be [start page 1002] taxable, but the interest of the lessee in
8 the property would be taxable.
9 Mr. GLYNN: I am only pointing out a difficulty that might arise.
10 Mr. HENRY: I would like to raise a question as to the right of the Commonwealth to tax materials
11 for State purposes. In the event of a colony importing rails, machinery, engines, &c., for State
12 purposes, I would like to know whether such exports are to be free from Customs duties. Will the
13 Federal Parliament have a right to levy duties on materials imported for State purposes?
14 Mr. BARTON: This is a matter that was discussed very fully in the Constitutional Committee, and I think
15 my hon. friend Sir George Turner will remember that I consulted the members of the Finance Committee
16 upon it, intimating to them the opinion of the Constitutional Committee on the point. The words:
17 Impose any tax on property
18 do not refer to the importation of goods at all, and any amendment to except the Customs would be
19 unnecessary. This clause states that a State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the
20 Commonwealth, impose taxation on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, meaning by that
21 property of any kind which is in hand, such as land within the Commonwealth. That has no reference to
22 Customs duties.
23 Sir GEORGE TURNER: Will articles imported by the States Governments come in free?
24 Mr. BARTON: The question then arises whether articles imported by the States Governments are to
25 come in free, but this section has nothing to do with that. Under this Bill and in the measure of 1891 I
26 believe duties would have been collectable upon imports by any State, and after the consultation which
27 I had with the hon. member and his colleagues on the Finance Committee the Constitutional
28 Committee decided not to make any exemption in the case of any State.
29 The CHAIRMAN: I would ask hon. members to confine themselves to the discussion of this clause.
30 Sir GEORGE TURNER: I propose to carry out your desire, Sir, to restrict my remarks to this particular
31 clause. In Victoria, as I mentioned the other day, we have an independent body called a Harbor Trust, which
32 collects a large amount of money and, as far as I can recollect, does it in the way of tonnage dues. If we pass
33 this clause, and we deprive this body of its revenue, they will simply have to fall back upon the Government
34 of the State. What is the meaning of the phrase:
35 Impose tonnage dues?
36 According to the way I read the clause it means that it is not to pass any law which would put on any fresh
37 dues.
38 Mr. MCMILLAN: I suppose the States gave these rights to the harbor trust.
39 Sir GEORGE TURNER: The State passes a law constituting a Harbor Trust and gives over to them the
40 right to collect these various revenues. What I desire is to preserve that right, whatever it may be. I am in
41 great difficulty as how this particular clause will affect that body, as well as similar bodies in other colonies
42 which collect small sums. I would be glad if my hon. friend Mr. Barton can give me any assistance with
43 regard to this matter, and tell us if this clause will or will not interfere with this existing body. If that be so I
44 shall be prepared to let the clause pass, and then, before the adjourned Convention is held, we shall have an
45 opportunity in the different colonies of ascertaining how these dues and rates are collected, and how this
46 clause will affect them, and whether we should make this amendment. In the meantime I should like Mr.
47 Barton to give me the real meaning of the clause.

Page 22
1 Mr. BARTON: As far as I can gather from this clause and the clause of 1891, it seems to me to refer to
2 any future legislation on the subject:
3 The State shall not impose tonnage dues.
4 [start page 1003]
5 The question of whether existing legislation would be invalidated would depend, first, upon whether
6 the dues were an infringement of the equality of trade throughout the Commonwealth, and next upon
7 whether the Commonwealth passed a law which-if it were in the province of the Commonwealth to past; it-
8 was in conflict with the law of the State, in which case, to the extent of the difference between the laws, the
9 law of the Commonwealth would prevail if section 98 were passed. It deals only with future legislation, I
10 think. but these tonnage dues may incur a prohibition if we find that they are a system of taxation,
11 because the Parliament of the Commonwealth has power to raise funds by any method of taxation. If
12 the method of carrying out that power were found to be in conflict with the law of the State, the law of
13 the Commonwealth would prevail. We have no provision for the Commonwealth taking over harbors or
14 harbor works, and it may be a question for consideration whether the Commonwealth, as it has power to
15 legislate on other subjects relating to the regulation of commerce and trade and so on, should not take over
16 harbor works too. That is what, on the face of it, seems to me to be the effect of the clause.
17 Mr. MCMILLAN: I think these tonnage dues must be excepted if the Parliament is to take over harbors.
18 Tonnage dues are simply payment for services rendered, and they do not practically come under the system
19 of taxation at all. They are levied for something done. If they are not excepted great trouble will ensue,
20 especially in regard to corporations. Is that System referred to by Sir George Turner administered by a
21 Minister of the Crown?
22 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No.
23 Mr. MCMILLAN: Does it apply then? These. are dues paid by the State as a State, but the case mentioned
24 is one of a corporation, in which there is a payment for services rendered. Tolls are exacted for the services,
25 call them dues or wharfage rates or whatever you like; they are the same in essence.
26 Sir GEORGE TURNER: If we do not guard against it corporate bodies may evade the Act, and the State
27 may appoint corporations to do work so as to evade it.
28 Mr. MCMILLAN: Something will have to be done or great trouble may ensue.
29 Mr. BARTON: With reference to the question of wharfage rates, members will recollect that the United
30 States Constitution contains a prohibition against the State levying tonnage duties without the consent of
31 Congress. It has been decided in the case of the Packet Company v. Catlettsburg, 105 U.S., 559:
32 A city or town on a navigable river may exact a reasonable compensation for the use of the wharf which it
33 owns without infringing the constitutional provisions concerning tonnage taxes or regulations of commerce.
34 That would appear to be rather in favor of the exemption of the harbor trust.
35 Mr. HENRY: It is within my own knowledge that there are Marine Boards in Australia, at all events in
36 Tasmania, worked as State departments. They are nominee bodies with a Minister practically at their head.
37 Mr. HIGGINS: Who gets the money?
38 Mr. HENRY: The Customs officers collect the wharfage and tonnage dues, and they pass into the hands of
39 the Government. I would like to ask Mr. Barton how it would operate in cases where the tonnage rates vary at
40 different ports in Australia? We might have one harbor with a particular rate and another with double or
41 treble that rate, so that we would not have an equality of trade. This is one of the difficulties which Mr.
42 Barton. and others, in considering this matter, should have placed before them. In this clause we are going to
43 hand to the Federal Government the right to legislate with regard to tonnage dues, and it is desirable that we
44 should know precisely what we [start page 1004] are doing and how it is going to affect the various harbor
45 trusts and marine boards.
46 Mr. BARTON: On considering the matter, I think that the tonnage dues mentioned here-we have altered
47 the word "duties" into "dues," and they seem to me like the word "tonnage dues" that used to prevail in the
48 the old country, such as tonnage dues on wines. We find the word referred to in Acts 9 Anne, and 10 George

Page 23
1 IV. They were tonnage dues granted to the Queen, and I think those referred to here were the same in the
2 United States Constitution. Whether that be so or not, the tonnage dues referred to in the clause seem to be
3 charges for services performed. For instance, a Harbor Trust is formed and carries out improvements and as a
4 means of recouping themselves the harbor authorities charge dues. Wharfage dues are for the use of a
5 wharf and have they not a similar meaning in the modern acceptation of the term? One is an impost
6 for the use of a wharf, the other for the use of a harbor on which money has been spent for the purpose
7 of rendering it more adapted for shipping. If that is so the words may be left out, and if they are left
8 out any tonnage due which is not a charge for services performed would be an impost interfering with
9 the freedom of trade and intercourse, and would come under section 86; that is to say, as soon as
10 uniform duties have been imposed, trade and intercourse shall be absolutely free, If they interfere they
11 could only do so so far as they are of the nature of taxes. If they are only charges for services
12 performed, as I explained in connection with clause 83, then there can be no objection to them. because
13 charges for use of a wharf are much in the same position as charges of the post office authorities for
14 the carriage of letters; they are payments for services. If that view is taken I shall offer no objection to
15 it.
16 Sir GEORGE TURNER: Why not for post and telegraphs?
17 Mr. BARTON: Any mere service that the Commonwealth does not take over is still in the hands of the
18 State. Clause 86 can only be infringed by something which means an interference with the freedom of
19 trade and intercourse. Anything that is fairly construable as a payment for services performed is not
20 handed over-the mere service can be charged for as before, because it is not an interference with trade
21 and intercourse. In such cases as that, mere service can be charged for as before, because it is not an
22 interference with trade or intercourse. I think we may well accept that view and leave out the words:
23 Impose tonnage dues or.
24 I move that they be left out.

25 END QUOTE
26
27 It must be clear that the reported about $9 billion the State government obtained from the about
28 50 year lease is not related to actual harbor cost but a profit that constitutes a tax in violation of
29 Section 92 of the constitution.
30 .
31 QUOTE
32 92 Trade within the Commonwealth to be free
33 On the imposition of uniform duties of customs, trade, commerce,
34 and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal
35 carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.
36 But notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, goods imported
37 before the imposition of uniform duties of customs into any State,
38 or into any Colony which, whilst the goods remain therein,
39 becomes a State, shall, on thence passing into another State within
40 two years after the imposition of such duties, be liable to any duty
41 chargeable on the importation of such goods into the
42 Commonwealth, less any duty paid in respect of the goods on their
43 importation.
44 END QUOTE
45
46 It is obvious that to sell/lease the rights to a company who needs to make profits and so has to
47 get its billion dollar payment back from those using the port, then this is an additional charge
48 violating s92 as any vessel (ship) using the port cannot within Section 92 be charged this
49 additional cost.
50
51 I look forwards to appropriate assistance to ensure that those who violate legal provisions, in
52 particular the constitution will be held legally accountable as no one is above the rule of law!
53
Page 24
1 As this correspondence is addressed to Victorian Government Solicitors Office then if you are
2 not in any position to personally deal with the matter then I am sure you will ensure that the
3 correspondence is forwarded to the appropriate person.
4
5 This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to address all issues.
6 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me Gerrit)

10
12 Graham Ashton AM Chief Commissioner Victorian Police 23-11-2018
13 Tower 1 637 Flinders Street Docklands Victoria 3008
14 psc-policeconductunitcomplaintsandcompliments@police.vic.gov.au
15
16 Ref: 20181123-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Graham Ashton AM Chief Commissioner Victorian
17 Police -RED SHIRT issue investigation-etc-Supplement 7
18
19 Sir,
20
21 QUOTE
22 Victorian Government Solicitors Office 23-11-2018
23 C/o Matthew Carrazzo
24 Principal Solicitor @ Victorian Government Solicitor's Office
25 Workplace Relations & Regulatory Compliance
26
27 Victorian Government Solicitor's Office
29 t +61 3 9032 3004 f +61 3 9032 3049
30 matthew.carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au
31 www.vgso.vic.gov.au
32 Matthew.Carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au <Matthew.Carrazzo@vgso.vic.gov.au>
Managing Lawyer @ Brimbank Melton Community Legal Centre
33
34 Ref: 20181123-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Victorian Government Solicitors Office
35
36 Sir,
37
38 See attachment 20181123-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Matthew.Carrazzo, vgso-vic-gov.au
39
40 Let us see if the Victorian Government Solicitors Office so eager to have me pursued in the
41 courts now will act honourably and pursue matters against those who failed to disclose
42 financial issue and misused/abused their positions, etc.
43
44 This document can be downloaded from:
45 https://www.scribd.com/document/393948444/20181123-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-
46 Matthew-carrazzo-Vgso-Vic-gov
47 END QUOTE
48
49
Page 25

3
4 It is important for the general community that it can trust the Victorian Government Solicitor’s
5 Office to act impartially and will pursue anyone who is deemed to be in violation of the rule of
6 law and not merely use its position for political purposes.
7
8 I have been very patient as to await formal response from the SGSO for more than 11 months but
9 now I view it is well overdue to remind the VGSO that where I provided appropriate details
10 information it should all along have responded in appropriate manner and not that I have to
11 gather from media releases if the VGSO cannot bother to pursue Members of Parliament for
12 political grounds.
13


20191024-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To VGSO - Nick Field Chief Operating Officer

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

20191024-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. To VGSO - Nick Field Chief Operating Officer

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Page 1

To: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com, schorel-hlavka@schorel-hlavka.com

Date: Friday, September 21, 2012 04:10 pm

Victorian Government Solicitor's Office

Level 39, 80 Collins Street, Melbourne Vic 3000

 Think Green before printing this email.

15 Ethics Orientation for State Officials

1 This I view would be anarchy.

24-10-2019 Page 12 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Cc: mayJUSTICEalwaysPREVAIL@schorel-hlavka.com, geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au,

Christine Fyffe, Speaker

Cc: Mr Geoff Shaw MP geoff.shaw@parliament.vic.gov.au

Mr Ken Smith, Former Speaker, Legislative Assembly Victoria, ken.smith@parliament.vic.gov.au

Daniel Andrews leader ALP daniel.andrews@parliament.vic.gov.au

Mr D. Napthine Premier of Victoria denis.napthine@parliament.vic.gov.au

VICTORIAN Treasurer Michael O’Brien michael.obrien@parliament.vic.gov.au

Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au

see attachment 20140607-G. H .Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Speaker Christine Fyffe-COMPLAINT-etc

24-10-2019 Page 13 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®

Blog (constitutional issues) http://www.scribd.com/inspectorrikati

A FOOL IS A PERSON WHO DOESN'T ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE OF BEING

24-10-2019 Page 14 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

24-10-2019 Page 15 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

24-10-2019 Page 17 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

6 Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Friends call me

9 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®

10 (Our name is our motto!)

45 Mr. HIGGINS: If it were only an amendment?

24-10-2019 Page 20 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

9 Mr. GLYNN: I am only pointing out a difficulty that might arise.

17 Impose any tax on property

35 Impose tonnage dues?

24-10-2019 Page 21 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

3 The State shall not impose tonnage dues.

4 [start page 1003]

22 Sir GEORGE TURNER: No.

37 Mr. HIGGINS: Who gets the money?

24-10-2019 Page 22 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

16 Sir GEORGE TURNER: Why not for post and telegraphs?

23 Impose tonnage dues or.

24 I move that they be left out.

7 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®

8 (Our name is our motto!)

1 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®

16 MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL ®

17 (Our name is our motto!)

24-10-2019 Page 25 © Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

Você também pode gostar